[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG#10

* Tore Anderson

 >   I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the
 >  changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.

* Manoj Srivastava

 > 	As an author of one of these proposals, and as an individual
 >  who still holds that the changes made in GR 2004_003 were
 >  editorial in nature, I have this to say: despite what you or I
 >  believe as individuals about the nature of the language chages in the
 >  previous GR, we are in the current GR process because the release
 >  policy changed.
 > 	The current proposal merely acknowledges the reality that
 >  things changed: prior to the GR, we were on our way to releasing
 >  sarge;  post gr 2004 003, we are not.
 > 	I don't think we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend
 >  nothing changed -- whether or not we believe anything should have
 >  changed.

  Hmm.  Even though I think your proposal seems like a tool not entirely
 fit for the job at hand, I find your reasoning persuasive.  It might
 just do the job anyway.

  For what it's worth I think the new foundation document your proposal
 introduces will be useful outside the scope of this particular issue.
 In all likelyhood, I will rank it above the other proposals that are
 currently slated for inclusion on the ballot.

Tore Anderson

Reply to: